Adam

The Huffington Post article by Ehrman surprised me when he said:
With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) -- sources that originated in Jesus' native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life.
(See link in Post #57)

I knew he had not read my post naming John Mark in the Gospel of John as one such source, my
Post #276 in "Bart Ehrman: Did Jesus Exist?":
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....88#post7108988

Nor had he read my #151 in "The Myth of Oral Communication of Jesus' Sayings and the Karma Chain" in which I mention several eyewitness sources in Proto-Luke.
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....57#post7107057

But it was nice to imagine so for a moment or two.

la70119

The supposed Aramaic sources.

GakuseiDon

No, that's Carrier's position. He wasn't ascribing this position to you.

I'll send Richard Carrier an email, and see if he has changed his mind on this. On "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man", Carrier described it as "90% speculative digression (hundreds and hundreds of pages worth)". (Carrier much prefers your earlier work). I suspect that your views on the Second Century apologists is part of that 90%, but to be fair I will check this with him.

:banghead: My position is that you are claiming that Tatian and co were members of a self-described Christianity that had no "Jesus Christ" at its core. That is, no historical Jesus Christ and no Pauline cosmic Jesus Christ.

??? My point is "semantically correct"??? :banghead:

Let's be clear on what you are claiming:

• Tatian and co were members of a self-described Christianity that had no historical or (Pauline) mythical "Jesus Christ" at its core.
• These Christians complained about being persecuted for their name. The accusations against these Christians were the same kinds of accusations made against the historicist Christians at the time.
• Some of these Christians portrayed themselves as members of a group that was wide-spread
• Some of these Christians portrayed themselves as members of a group which pronounced their Christianity to be very "old" and they look back to roots in the Jewish prophets rather than to the life of a recent historical Jesus. In this, they are much like the 1st century epistle writers.
• Some of these Christians wrote in the second half of the Second Century
• There are no direct references to such a Christianity in the writings of extant contemporary heresiologists.
• if one leaves aside Justin Martyr there is a silence in the 2nd Century apologists on the subject of the historical Jesus which is virtually equal of that found in the 1st century epistle writers.

Does that accurately portray your position? I'm not asking you to defend them, but simply to state that I have your position recorded accurately. If I am not accurate, please let me know.

GakuseiDon

So... how did my statement "Earl Doherty believes that the majority of extant Second Century apologists, with Justin Martyr being the exception, were members of a Christianity that had no Jesus Christ at its core" misrepresent him?

yalla

What is a Jesus Christ?

From the back page blurb of a well known book by a well known and reputable scholar [my bold].

"Like King David before him, the Jesus of the Bible is an amalgamation of themes from Near Eastern mythology and traditions of kingship and divinity.
The theme of a messiah - a divinely appointed king who restores the world to perfection - is typical of Egyptian and Babylonian royal ideology dating back to the Bronze Age. In [the author's] view, the contemporary audience for whom the Old and New Testament were written would naturally have interpreted David and Jesus not as historical figures but as metaphors embodying long established messianic traditions".

GakuseiDon

All, I've emailed Richard Carrier on whether his views of Earl Doherty's Second Century apologists have changed or not. I've sent him a link to this thread. If he responds, and he is okay for me to do so, I will update this thread.

judge

This is a bit creepy to be honest. Why do you want to know where I live.
Why are you trying to get me to disclose where I live and my name...it is a bit creepy if you ask me.

If you do it again I may have to make a complaint.
And show me where I personally attacked you or withdraw the accusation please.

Steven Carr

My prediction was that Bart would not talk about Doherty's Top 20 silences.

And it seems Galatians 1 is part of the 'key data' along with the identification of Cephas and Peter that Bart himself questioned.

Haven't we had people on this forum before talking about 'Early Doherty.'?

Steven Carr

I happen to be agnostic, because of the existence of Galatians 1.

What I am, is somebody shocked by the standards of mainstream Biblical 'scholarship'

And dying of curiosity to know what Bart makes of Romans 13 or Romans 10.

I do like the claim of 'causing much ill-will towards mythicism', when Bart Ehrman compares mythicists to Holocaust-deniers and birthers.

judge

Actually Earl on reflection I have been rude aggressive and quite harsh and hypocritical in my responses to you . So I would like apologize as I mean you no I'll. I've just got carried away ( which is not an excuse) so I want to wish you the best with your work and your operation and hope to have more fruitful interactions with you in future . Apologies if anything I've done has been harmful to you in any way